Monday, November 23, 2015

For years, the growing following and influence of ultra-conservative Islamist ideology in parts of Europe including Belgium, France and even Scandinavian countries has been talked and written about. Sometimes attacks on small scale were ignored as petty crimes or for reasons of political correctness, these were pushed under the carpet as Europe tried hard to project its image as a multi-cultural and multi-religious project where people of all faiths were free to follow and propagate their religious beliefs.

Until the 7 July, 2005 London attacks, Britain loved to show its openness to ideas and people even if they as UK residents preached hatred and opposition to Westminster style of democracy. A radical Egyptian cleric Abu Hamza was treated virtually as a state guest as he preached radical doctrine to Muslims in London and UK. Many in India will remember the freedom given to Khalistani Sikh organisations and Tamil Tigers by British authorities. Radical groups were allowed to spread hatred in the name of freedom and free speech.

If the London attacks forced British authorities to wake up to the threat posed by such groups and the ideas they propagated, the November 2015 attacks in Paris seem to have woken up mainstream political parties in Europe to such a threat. Suddenly, Belgium is viewed as a weak link and liberal democracies have realised the danger of giving “unfettered” freedom to Islamic groups.

Flirtation with Saudi Arabia saw the rise of fancy mosques across the continent where many clerics preached a return to “pure Islamic ideals” as espoused in the Quran. Puritanical Wahhabi ideology was and continues to be propagated from many of these mosques across the world, where clerics are not only sowing seeds of hatred against liberal democracies but also against Shia Muslims.

The last few years witnessed Salafis grow and spread with great speed across the globe as well. Their brand of Islam that considers all ideas and practices of Muslims that are not in conjunction with the Holy Book as heretical has taken root across the continent, among a growing population of young Muslims who are being told day in and day out that they must return to their roots.

Salafis are more conservative and do not accept many of the beliefs of Sunni Muslims, and they are more aggressively opposed to any cultural influence impacting Muslim practices. They are greater opponents of mysticism, and reject ideas of saints and their shrines as unacceptable. This makes South Asian Islam as nothing short of heretical. Men and women must not mix with non-Muslims, give up any form of worship such as visits to Sufi shrines and abjure any act that could be construed as un-Islamic.

Saudi Arabia’s brand of Islam that it has successfully marketed to millions across Asia, Africa and now Europe through generous financial payoffs and donations, has impacted younger population of Muslims in parts of India for last few years.

India has also over the years seen more and more Muslims, particularly the younger population, get attracted to preachings of ultra-conservative clerics. This is not to say that they are supporters of radical groups like the Islamic State and Taliban. But, the change in the complexion of discourse within sections of Muslim population, their responses and growing assertion of some people that there is need to abandon centuries old brand of South Asian Islam are a natural consequence of years of government indifference, some complicity and failure to recognise what/how Saudi money was actually contributing to a change in the way many Muslims think.

A few months ago Oman flagged concern about growing radicalisation of thousands of Muslim workers from India in the Gulf country.

The growing pressure of Wahhabis to push their conservative ideology has disturbed sections of Sunnis in India and a few months ago some of its leaders sought government intervention to check its spread.

The Sunni Wakf Board fears that Wahhabis could take over a majority of shrines and 'dargahs' of Sunnis allowing terror groups like IS inroads into the country. Wahabi clerics and preachers have had little difficulty in getting visas to address and influence congregations across the country.

Salafis in Bengaluru

In the last few years Salafis have managed to take root in large parts of the country including Benguluru which boasts of 42-odd Salafi mosques that preach ideas that are repugnant to centuries-old Islamic traditions in India. That it was not easy to set up Salafi mosques due to opposition from existing Islamic groups in Bengaluru is well acknowledged by the Salafi trust on its official website. “There were physical fights, social boycott, warnings and torture for the above members for bringing the Salafi methodology in their locality” before they managed to build Salafi mosques, states its official website.

Initial opposition later dissolved and they managed to expand their influence in the city and among its young population,

I recall meeting a young Muslim in Benguluru some years ago who was forthright in his criticism of his mother and sister’s “un-Islamic” acts of visiting Sufi shrines and praying at mazars of saints. He also minced no words to state his opposition to Shias terming them as non-Muslims. This young educated man was a regular at a Salafi mosque in Koramangala area, home to wealthy people such as Infosys and Wipro chiefs.

Kerala has for many years seen a subtle shift in the way women dress up, use of headscarves, and even design for new mosques. In fact, preachers from Muslim Brotherhood have had access to Kerala in last several years where institutions like the Islamic Mission Trust have used foreign funding to set up educational and social institutions to widen their reach and influence.

Salafi organisations like Kerala Nadwatul Mujahideen have been around since 1950s but post-1992's Babri Masjid demolition and the turn of the new century, they have witnessed growth and radicalisation of minds that is a matter of concern.

Al-Jamiya Al-Islamia in Malappuram (north Kerala) with well-defined objectives to provide leadership for teaching, training and research in Arabic Language and Literature has emerged as a new institution that preaches conservative Islam. Saudi Arabia pledged millions of Saudi Riyals to them ostensibly for constructing an arts and science college building. In 2003, it became a university “and a dream come true” when a celebrated international scholar Sheikh Yusuful Qardawi declared it a university. Qardawi, now in exile in Qatar, belongs to Muslim Brotherhood. According to international websites he is known for his militant religious rulings and political commentary in support of acts of terrorism and repression of women.

It also pledged one million Saudi Riyal to the construction of a nursing college. A similar amount was also pledged to Palghat Mujahideen Arabic College Committee in Kerala for the purpose of extending an existing medical college and the Karuma hospital building.

In eastern Uttar Pradesh, Saudi Riyals were donated to establish a madrasa building and a vocational centre for girls in Mirzapur and Siddharth Nagar. Schools and colleges with Arabic names prominently stick out across western UP today. Attempts to also link Muslim identity with Saudi Arabia, reminiscent of what happened in Pakistan, need to be addressed politically and ideologically.

UP, Kerala and Karnataka examples merely illustrate how ultra-conservative ideas alien to Muslims in India are now getting greater attention and following among sections of Muslims because of inadequate political understanding and response. Political parties in India that claim to be flag-bearers of secularism need to look beyond short term electoral gains to formulate a response to Wahhabis and Salafis gaining mind space among sections of world’s third largest Muslim population.

At the root of conflicts in the name of religion is the belief among numerous (though, mercifully, not all) religionists that the particular religion they claim to follow and the community based around it are the best of all and that all the other are decidedly inferior. This warped belief can easily conduce to religious absolutism and communal supremacism. As history as well as current events show, these can lead to deep-rooted aversion to other religions and their adherents, and even to brutal wars in the name of religion and God.

Socialisation into religious absolutism and communal supremacism often happens in childhood, through parents and significant others who had been similarly socialized by their parents when they were young. Children reared in this manner often grow up imagining their religion to be the sole repository of truth, the only way to communicate with or ‘please’ God, the one and only path to heaven. Many parents actively inculcate negative views about other religions and degrading stereotypes about other religious communities in the minds of their children, with long-lasting tragic results. This message is often reinforced by people who claim to be religious authorities. Consequently, such children grow up deeply prejudiced against other faiths and communities, with ominous consequences for religiously-plural societies, as almost all societies today are.

Hatred begins in the mind, and the only way negative images can replaced with positive ones is by changing our mindsets. If we allow ourselves to recognize at least one good thing in religions and communities other than the ones we may identify with, it could go a long way in promoting more accepting and positive images of others. And that is the only way to nurture interfaith harmony.

The other day, a friend of mine and I decided to play a game that we came up with all of a sudden. It was something that we concocted at the spur of the moment: an impromptu interfaith harmony game!

In the first stretch of the game, we sat silently and brought to our mind one or more good things we could identify in every major religion. When we shared the findings of this meditation, we were delighted! We were able to discern ample goodness in all the religions we could conceive of! Each religion, we discovered, had at least something beautiful in it!

Then, in the next part of the game, we went back to silence and this time tried to bring to our mind at least one person each from different religious backgrounds whom we knew personally who had deeply touched our lives, someone who had won our hearts with his or her very being.

Now, this was something that we hadn’t really consciously given much attention to before—you know how we often tend to take people for granted and loathe to recognize goodness in anyone but ourselves—but as we let our minds wander, we discovered that it was really easy going! In no time at all we came up with an impressive list of many such people—such as the kind-hearted head of a Hindu ashram, a friendly Muslim social worker, a soft-spoken Buddhist monk, a helpful Jesuit priest, an amiable Jain doctor, an amazing Jewish peace activist, and many more such amazing souls! Not all of them were religious in the conventional sense. Some of them were, but others had transcended traditional understandings of religion. While some identified with the religious community into which they had been born, others had gone beyond such ascriptive identities, espousing a universal spirituality that saw no differences of creed or community. At the same time, each of them had been wonderfully kind to us, in different ways. They had lovingly accepted us just as we were, despite our apparent religious or other differences. It was this, we realized, that had so endeared them to us.

Our little game lasted less than half an hour, but even this brief experiment was a momentous learning experience for me. It vividly reminded me of our common humaneness, of how, despite our apparent differences, as fellow human beings there is no difference between us at all in our essence. Goodness, we also discovered, knows no religious or communal boundaries! There’s ample goodness to be discovered in every religion, community and person if we care to look for it!

You could play this game, too—with your friends, colleagues or children. I’m sure you’d be amazed at your findings!

“My Mercy prevails over My Wrath,” says Almighty Allah in a sacred saying (narrated by Bukhari, Muslim, Nasa’i and Ibn Majah). For Takfiri terrorists like IS, the so-called “Islamic” State, it is wrath that prevails over mercy. When asked to curse the polytheists, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, responded that “I was sent as a mercy” (Muslim). If anything, the rapists, torturers, and mass murderers who have infiltrated Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, and other parts of the world, can only be seen as a curse, the likes of which have not been seen since the Mongol invasion of Genghis Khan in the 13th century.

While Islam does indeed permit Jihad, in the form of armed struggle, to combat certain oppressive conditions, it is highly regulated by a detailed code of norms and conduct. The killing of non-combatants, civilians, women, children, imams, priests, monks, nuns, and other members of religious orders, is categorically prohibited in Islam. Torture, rape, and the trafficking of women are all crimes which merit capital punishment under Islamic law. The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, forbade Muslims from sacking sacred sites and places of worship, stating that anyone who destroyed a church or a monastery would receive the curse of Almighty Allah.

IS, ISIS, ISIL or Daesh is a terrorist, mercenary, army at the service of imperial forces. They do not speak for Islam or represent Islam in any shape or form. To describe such psychopaths as Sunnis is to insult the Sunnah. To describe Da‘ish as “Islamic” is an insult to Islam. The only terms that adequately describes the ideology of these demons is Takfiri, Wahhabi, Khariji, and Nasibi, Excommunicators, Wahhabis, Separatists, and Haters of the Household of the Prophet. While they call themselves Jihadists, they pervert the term jihad or sacred struggle. While they call themselves Salafi, followers of the pious predecessors, they are an offense to the true Salaf, the righteous Companions and their Followers.

As Almighty Allah, glorified and exalted be He, warns in the Holy Qur’an, “Do not exaggerate in your religion” (4:171), a verse that can also be translated as “Do not be fanatical in your faith.” The Qur’an also warns believers to “Beware of extremism in your religion” (5:77). In short, Muslims are supposed to be “a justly balanced nation” (2:143). Although some scholars may argue that the reproach against extremism contained in the Qur’an applies only to the People of Book, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, explained that it was equally applicable to Muslims. In fact, he warned his followers to “Beware of extremism in your religion for it is that which destroyed the nations which came before you” (Nasai and Ibn Majah). In another tradition, he stated that “The religious extremists are destroyed” (Muslim and Abu Dawud). The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, also warned: “There are two groups of people from my Ummah who will not receive my intercession: oppressive rulers, and religious extremists” (Tabarani)

It should be noted, however, that Takfiri combatants are not committed Muslims. In reality, they are all mercenaries. Large numbers of them are non-Muslim soldiers of fortune and guns-for-hire, and many are drawn from the criminal class. “Allah is Beautiful and loves beauty,” says the Prophet Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace (Muslim). Takfiri terrorists, however, are hideously ugly. “Allah is good and only accepts that which is good,” said the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him (Muslim). Takfiri terrorists, however, are devoid of good. Since “Allah is Just and loves justice,” and “Allah is Loving and loves love,” the true representatives of Islam are Ahl al-Hub and Ahl al-‘Adl, the People of Love and the People of Justice. As Almighty Allah warns in the Holy Qur’an: “Do not commit evil in the land for God does not love the evil-doers” (28:77)

Takfiri terrorists, such as ISIS/ISIL/IS, as well as al-Qa’edah, al-Shabab, the Taliban, al-Nusrah, Boko Haram, and other criminal organizations, do not speak for Islam or represent Islam. Not only are they not Ahl al-Sunnah (Sunnis), they are not members of the Ummah (Community) of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, as a result of their own beliefs and actions. The Takfiriyyin, (those who believe that all Muslims, save themselves, are infidels), theKhawarij (those who broke away from the community in the early days of Islam, accusing both the Sunnis and the Shi‘ites of apostasy) and the Nawasib(those who hate the Household of the Prophet and their followers) are agents of the enemies of Islam.

We do not condemn the Takfiris as “infidels who may be legally killed” as they do in the case of traditional Sunnis, Shi‘ites, and Sufis. The traditional Muslim Shari’ah does not grant carte blanche to kill someone simply because he or she is an atheist, an agnostic, a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu, a Bahai or a Salafi-Jihadi. As Almighty Allah warns in the Qur’an: “Whosoever kills a human being unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all of humanity” (5:32).

Although people cannot be condemned to death on the basis of their beliefs, they can be killed in combat or receive the death penalty on the basis of their actions. Consequently, any and all terrorists who have committed crimes against humanity and the Divinity should be brought to justice. And while Shimr may have murdered Imam Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, the true culprit was Yazid, his Commander in Chief, may the curse of God be upon him. Likewise, while Takfiri terrorists should be held accountable for their crimes, those who founded them, funded them, armed them, trained them, and supported them, in any form or fashion, should be exposed and face the sword of justice.

The so-called “Islamic State” should be known as the “Satanic State” as it does nothing but spread corruption on earth (Fasad fi al-Ard). Territory under the control of Takfiri terrorists is the abode of unbelief (Kufr), falsehood (Ifk), heresy (Ilhad), and immorality (Fawahish). They represent the path of error (Sirat Al-Dalala), the pulpit of discord (Minbar Al-Khilaf), the den of iniquity (‘Arin Al-Ghawayyah), and the land of criminals (Dawlat Al-Mujrimin). The Takfiris are the enemies of Allah and His Messenger (‘Adu Allah wa Rasulihi). As such, it is categorically prohibited to support them in any form or fashion. Moreover, it is the obligation of all Muslims from Ahl al-Sunnah, Ahl al-Tasawwuf, and Ahl al-Bayt (the Sunnis, the Sufis, and the Shi‘ites), to oppose the polytheism (Shirk), hypocrisy (Nifaq), apostasy (Irtidad), and schism (Shiqaq) that the Takfiris are spreading throughout the lands of Islam.

The only people authorized to establish the Government of God on Earth are the Mahdi and Jesus, the Son of Mary, peace be upon them both. As we anxiously await their rise, we must stand for peace and justice, uphold Islamic ethical values, defend human dignity, and respect and preserve human life. Do not be deceived during these times of trials and tribulations (Fitan). People, who rape, torture, mutilate and murder civilians, non-combatants, hostages and prisoners of war are not Friends of Allah (‘Auliya’ Allah). People who destroy places of worship and sacred sites, who burn churches and blow up mosques with copies of the Holy Qur’an still in them, are not Friends of Allah. People who violate the teachings of the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the Shari‘ah, and the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, are not the Friends of Allah. If anything, they are the Friends of Satan (‘Auliya’ al-Shaytan). As Muslims, our response towards terrorists can only be one: “Fight the friends of Satan” (Qur’an 4:76); “And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away for tumult and oppression is even worse than slaughter” (Qur’an 2:191).

In light of the non-Islamic character of the Takfiris and their role as agents of western and globalist imperialism against Islam, Muslims should find it easy to see through their absurd claim to be “defenders of Islam!”

John Andrew Morrrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) is a native North American, born into a Christian family and a revert to Islam. He represents a rare combination of Western and traditional religious education - PhD from University of Toronto majoring Hispanic, Native, and Islamic Studies, and full cycle of traditional Islamic seminary studies attaining the titles of ustadh, duktur, hakim, and shaykh. Dr. Morrow has spent over a decade in the United States working at various universities including Park University, Northern State University, Eastern New Mexico University, the University of Virginia, and Ivy Tech where he was unanimously appointed to the rank of Full Professor. Aside from his academic duties, Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) is the Director of the Covenants of the Prophet Foundation, an organization dedicated to disseminating traditional, civilizational, Islam; promoting Islamic unity; protecting persecuted Christians; and improving relations between Muslims and members of other faiths. He regularly travels the world to promote peace and justice

We cannot accept any religious justification for the killing of innocent and non-combatant civilians whatever the motive, whatever the method or wherever the reason. However, if we Muslims are really concerned about war on terror, every narrative of victimhood, denial and conspiracy theories should be deconstructed and dismantled. Action-reaction theory is also run of the mill. The recent Paris attack showed an obnoxious picture of the violent extremists wantonly killing and terrorizing innocent civilians. It was not only an attack on peace and harmony prevailing in France but a clear indication of rapid rise in the global extremist ideology. It was a direct result of ISIS jihadists returning from Syria with mindless violence motivated by a dangerous ideology of intolerance and wanton killing.

Against the backdrop of the ISIS-led Paris massacre, it is high time we take cognizance of the extremist ideology that Daesh and its entire jihadist ilk adhere to. Throughout the Islamic history, the Kharjism-inspired doctrines provided the religious and ideological underpinnings to enable radical Islamist movements to take up arms against existing governments. While most governments are able to reconcile with the mainstream moderate Muslims, neo-Kharijite extremists reject any kind of compromise, insisting on their way to the exclusion of all others. In their crazy bid to fulfill their self-imposed duties of ‘Dawah and Irshad’ (preaching and proselytizing), Amr Bil Maruf Wa Nahy Anil Munkar (enjoining good and forbidding evil) and al-Wala wal-Bara (loyalty and enmity), they easily resort to armed struggle and wanton killing. Thank God, the global progressive Islamic media, particularly New Age Islam, has been carrying news and analysis on the global Jihadists inspired by a complete theology of intolerance rooted in the Islamic history. Of course, there is no way out without combating the hate-driven understanding of Islam which continues to attract recruits for the ISIS other Islamist terrorist organisations. Before more and more innocent lives are lost, it would be timely and expedient to identify the ideological roots of IS which lie in the extremist theology.

While the world leaders have openly called for war on ISIS, one should pay heed to what a Saudi scholar Fu’ad Ibrahim has brought out in his research findings. His findings need to be seriously studied. He says that the ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s expressions replicate exactly the language of Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the founder ideologue of Wahhabism. Most particularly, the constant use of the dangerous radical doctrine “al-Wala wal Bara” (friendship with Salafi-Wahhabi Muslims and enmity against other Muslims and non-Muslims) is cherished by the ISIS jihadists. The ferocious understanding of this doctrine is the core essence of the hardcore belief that Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his followers consider “an integral part to Iman-e-Kamil” (perfect faith in Islam).

“Islam of a man can never be accepted, even if he abandons polytheism, unless he shows enmity in his words and actions towards the disbelievers and infidels”……. “Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co-existences between these two contradictory faiths is unthinkable”……“The honour of Islam lies in insultingKufr and Kafirs, One who respects Kafirs, dishonours the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honour in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing considerations to them. They should be kept at an arm's length like dogs”…..... “If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking them into confidence. The highest Islamic sentiment asserts that it is better to forego that worldly business and that no relationship should be established with the Kafirs”.

Following in his footsteps, another later Salafist ideologue Shaikh Hamad bin Ateeq, who studied Islam at Imam Muhammad bin Sa‘ud Islamic University in Riyadh and learned from leading Salafi clergy like Shaikh bin Baaz, Shaikh al-‘Uthaymeen and Shaikh al-Fawzaan, writes:

“In the book of Allah (Qur'an) there is no ruling more apparent and significant than the ruling of al-Wala' Wal Bara', after the requirement of Tawhid and the prohibition of its opposite” (An-Najaat wal-Fakak, p.14).

In fact, all the above extremist renditions are misleading interpretations of a Qur’anic verse mentioned in Surat al-Muja'dilah (verse: 22).They are entirely relied on an earlier interpretation rendered by the founder-ideologue of Salafism, Shaikh Ibn Taymiyya. He writes:

"The declaration of faith that there is no god but Allah, requires you to love only for the sake of Allah, to hate only for the sake of Allah, to ally yourself only for the sake of Allah, to declare enmity only for the sake of Allah; it requires you to love what Allah loves and to hate what Allah hates (al-Ihtijaj bil-Qadar, p.62).

It should be made clear that the hardcore Wahhabi belief of al-Wala wal-Bara (that a Muslim cannot be a perfect Muslim until he/she shows hatred in words and actions against the non-Muslims) also includes non-Salafi/Wahhabi Muslims such as the Sufis and Shias etc. Therefore, merely having faith in one Creator is not sufficient for them to be called Muslim. They have to harbour and foment hatred and enmity against the infidels, even if they happen to be their friends, classmates, neighbours, countrymen or even relatives. And yes, harbouring this evil emotion only in heart will not suffice. They need to convert them all to Islam or else slit their throats, chop off their heads, kill their wives, their children and destroy their properties and take them as the spoils of war. Those denying this ‘principle of faith’ or even entertaining doubts about it were declared by Ibn Abdul Wahhab as ‘Murtad’ (apostates) and hence were slaughtered.

So the ISIS jihadists, by trying to terrorise the non-Muslim or non-Wahhabi world today, are actually implementing one of the basic postulates of the Wahhabi version of Islam. No wonder then, Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s writings and other Wahhabi Ulema’s books and commentaries of Qur’an are widely distributed in the areas sized by the Daesh.

Regrettably, this radicalized understanding of Islam continues to spread unchecked and unchallenged, threatening social stability at the local, national, and regional levels and creating geopolitical dangers, especially to the common masses of the Middle East, USA and Europe. Stemming from the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, the violent tide of faith-inspired fanaticism came all out to play havoc across the globe. It is directly linked with the Khariji-Wahhabi ideology which is completely antithetical to the mainstream spiritual narrative of Islam. This ideology is built on the concept of political enforcement of religious beliefs and thus allows aggression and violence in matters of faith. Much against this idea, the traditional Islam considers faith as a personal relationship between man and God. Therefore, in this spiritual belief, there can be no compulsion or force used in religion. From the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), peace and tolerance were practiced between different religious groups, with respect to distinctions in belief. However, many of us are turning a blind eye to a vicious xenophobia and intolerance. This is the major cause of the atrocities of ISIS or other extremist followers of Islam today which rely on brazenly un-Islamic doctrines.

A considerable number of Islamic clerics, Ulema and Imams, particularly those with Sufi orientation, have come out to denounce terrorism. The topmost Islamic university Al-Azhar’s chancellor Shaikh Ahmad Al-Tayyab’s categorical admission of link between violence and the extremist Islamic theology at a counter-terrorism summit in Mecca is a strong case in point. Even the current Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, has stated that the ISIS jihadists follow a twisted understanding of Islamic beliefs. "They tell their followers that they will end up in paradise, if they murder people. But this goes against the Prophet’s teachings, because, of course, nobody gets to paradise using these methods. We need to preach the idea that a person gets to paradise through cultural enlightening, education and solidarity", he said in a recent interview to Russia Today on 13th Nov, 2015. Yet, Ulema are not yet refuting the terrorist ideology regularly, systematically and point by point, as done on NewAgeIslam.com.

Nearly all world religious leaders and governments have shown vital support to France in this troubling time. But the same question remains to be answered: will they again restrict themselves to their verbal outrage against the ISIS as usual? Is merely condemning the culprits sufficient? Every condemnation, however vehement or spirited, will remain futile, unless they rebut the ideologies of terror. It is an opportune time for them to run down the extremist ideology that the ISIS and other jihadists adhere to. Surprisingly enough, a large part of the world are still purportedly oblivious to the ideological factor, while a considerable number of Islamic scholars, spiritual masters and heads of global Islamic seminaries have alluded to the nexus between extremism and the misreading of Qur’an and Hadith (the primary Islamic scriptures). What else will it take us to wake up to the harsh reality that the Daesh has an ideology which is at war with the entire humanity including Muslims, not just the non-Muslims? Unless the world leaders declare an unequivocal war against the core ideology of the ISIS, no war on terror will help.

However, Islamist ideology of terror is specific to a particular obnoxious stream of thought and not common to the entire religion of Islam. But unfortunately, after the Paris massacre, there is substantial evidence of increase in Islamophobic sentiments and anti-Muslim incidents such as ban on beard and Burqa, mosques, madrasas and other Islamic preaching centres. Obviously, it’s not a solution, rather a rash reaction to an action. It can’t just put an end to the constant tide of extremism until they curb the real culprits--the extremist ideologues and their blind followers. Instead of a rash generalisation based on oversimplification of radical Islamism, the governments should try to understand and combat it on a much deeper level. They need concrete action plans for rebutting and rooting out the terror ideologies in place of banning a complete faith tradition, its places of worship, or cultural dresses. However, Muslims should also learn one thing: as long as their co-religionists keep playing havoc across the world loudly claiming that their faith tells them to do so, they can’t just live in a world free from Islamophobia.

Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar, English-Arabic-Urdu writer, and a Doctoral Research Scholar, Centre for Culture, Media & Governance (JMI Central University). After graduation in Arabic (Hons.), he has done his M. A. in Comparative Religions & Civilizations and a double M.A. in Islamic Studies from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He can be contacted at grdehlavi@gmail.com

Watching the terrible events unfolding during and after the Paris terrorist attacks, I have a helpless sense ofdeja vu. It reminds me of the movie, Groundhog Day, only much more deadly and depressing. It feels like we have been here so many times before: the same anguished images, the same suffering, the same questions and sense of disbelief. Most depressingly, listening to the rhetoric coming from Western leaders, I can’t see any way we can avoid experiencing the same day again – whether in a few months or years time.

As I explained in my book Writing the War on Terrorism (2005, Manchester University Press) about the language of counterterrorism, when the 11 September 2001 attacks occurred, President Bush said that they were “an act of war”. This was a key rhetorical move and it led the US to launch the global war on terrorism which has caused so much suffering, violence and counter-violence. On Friday in Paris, exactly like all those years ago, French President Hollande said, the attack was “an act of war committed by a terrorist army”, and “faced with war, the country must take appropriate action”. Just like President Bush fourteen years ago, he similarly signalled his resolve: “we are going to fight and our fight will be merciless.” Former president Nicolas Sarkozy added to the war rhetoric: “The war we must wage should be total.”

After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush said that the attacks were an attack on freedom and the civilised world. Today, President Obama said: “this is an attack not just on Paris, not just on the people of France, but an attack on all humanity and the universal values we share.” As Bush did so many years ago invoking the mythology of the Western frontier, Obama said that America will do “whatever it takes to bring these terrorists to justice”.

After the attacks back in 2001, we heard the Bush administration claim that al Qaeda represented an anti-modern form of totalitarianism. Following the same script, today US Secretary of State John Kerry said “we are witnessing a kind of medieval and modern fascism at the same time.” And similar to George Bush’s frequent invocation of the “evil” of terrorism and terrorist “evildoers”, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described yesterday’s attacks as “the work of the devil”.

As I and many others have argued, this kind of rhetoric is not without consequence; it functions to shape and structure the response which will inevitably come. It provides a powerful cognitive frame for thinking about the threat of political violence and how to respond. If the attacks are viewed and discussed as an act of “war”, for example, as opposed to a terrible “crime”, a military response then becomes the logical default option. And if the terrorists are conceived of as “evil” or “devils”, or even as “fascists” and “medieval”, then there is no place for anything except policies of eradication: there can be no compromise with “evil”.

After 9/11, presidential rhetoric about the terrorist attacks laid the foundation for a massive military-based “war on terrorism” which involved two major wars costing three trillion dollars and over a million lives, military strikes and a drone killing programme on at least three other countries, a global rendition and torture programme, profiling and mass surveillance, restrictions of human rights, the militarisation of the police, and many other restrictive measures in daily life. In turn, all this activity has contributed to violent instability across the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Horn of Africa, the mass movement of refugees, the rise of Islamophobia, and much else besides. Arguably, in a self-fulfilling prophesy, or what is called “blowback” by the security services, it helped to create at least five new al Qaeda groups, and numerous other militant affiliates. In Iraq, it led directly to the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq which then morphed into ISIS, and the merger of the Syrian and Iraq civil wars. In response, the West has initiated a renewed military campaign to bomb areas of Syria and Iraq.

In other words, on the rhetorical basis of the “war” against “evil” frame, the West helped to create and sustain a deeply embedded cycle of violence. The Paris attacks, as well as the Beirut attack a few hours earlier and the killing of “Jihadi John”, are the latest acts in this by now quite intractable cycle of violence. The language of Western leaders, especially the words of the French leadership today, strongly suggest that we remain trapped in our own “war on terrorism” Groundhog Day. I think it’s safe to say that Western leaders will respond with more bombing of the Middle East, more military force, more war, more responding to terrorism with even greater violence and repression. After all, once the words are spoken, there is no choice but to eradicate “evil”.

This means that there will be future days like today, both in Western countries and in the countries of the Middle East rhetorically linked to terrorism. We will try and kill them with our military, and they will try and kill us with their militants. Of course, in Groundhog Day, Bill Murray eventually escapes his fate by learning from his mistakes and gaining a stronger sense of humanity. The message of the movie is that there is always hope that people can change and break the negative cycles of their actions. Today, there is no evidence that our leaders are ready to learn from their mistakes over fourteen years of the war on terror, and maybe it is not the day to insist they do. Let’s grieve first, and then consider carefully whether we want to keep on the same path. The problem is that the words our leaders speak today will shape the reflections and actions they choose in the coming days, and today, I can’t see anything else to come except more Groundhog Day.

Professor Richard Jackson is with The National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand

Post Paris terror attack has generated a new venue for politicians, a sensitive and troubling topic for conversation among families, neighbours and friends. Last evening while out to dinner with another couple the discussion after some initial pleasantries soon shifted to ISIS and Islamophobia. We raised the question, what can we do to reduce fear mongering, hatred and discrimination so blatantly gushed by the republican candidates: Donald Trump: Suggested closing American mosques and forcing Muslim Americans to register in a national database. Ben Carson: Compared Syrian refugees -- families fleeing the terrible violence of war -- to rabid dogs. Jeb Bush: Suggested a religious test for refugees to be allowed to enter the U.S. Non-Christian refugees would be turned away.

Most commonly held view among the Non-Muslims Westerners is that Islam embodies a rigid and inflexible doctrine and that no Muslim can speak against Islam because the Quran says anyone who criticizes Islam is branded a nonbeliever and deserves retributive processes. Islam is all about submitting to the will and plans of the Prophet that include converting everyone to Islam or slaying them. Islam is at war with Western civilization. Of course most of these allegations are untrue. My friend observed, we in the Western world are up against, a non-conventional army, per se; it’s an ideology. While a military response is necessary, it’s not sufficient. An ideology can be suppressed, limited and curtailed militarily, but it cannot be defeated with bombs and tanks. It will shrink into the shadows and resurface in another place, at another time. Furthermore we felt that the defeat of an ingrained ideology can only come about by education and reorientation from within and among its adherents.

If Muslim world are truly perturbed by the likes of the Islamic State group, or ISIS, they must ask themselves who they really are, who they really want to be, how they really want to be perceived and what role they really wish to play in the community of nations. There have been protests and statements by ISNA, ICNA, IMANA, CAIR, and several mosques in the different states but this carries very little weight and has more of a “political correctness” element. Regrettably, too few learned and respected Muslim scholars have spoken out against the current jihadist ideology. Is the fear of reprisal too great? Is the price too high? Where are the brave leaders in the Islamic world, willing to risk it all for the greater good of their own people and world at large? The peaceful Muslims should consider separating completely from the terrorist Muslim bearing contagions of the true Islamic values. It’s a long road but one must embark.

I would end my letter by quoting the following NYT columnist Charles M Blow, Anti-Muslim Is Anti-American:

”Fear is winning out over hope not just evident… in the rhetoric of political candidates. We're talking about spending billions of dollars to send thousands of soldiers to fight jihadists on their ground. We're talking about spending billions to build walls and provide guards to keep "the others" out of our privileged enclave. We've already spent billions to provide surveillance cameras and armed guards for schools and trained millions of children how to seek cover from "shooters".

No one running for office suggests we spend money for a Marshall Plan to help Middle East countries torn by war for a generation. No one suggests we provide funds to assist countries that are welcoming refugees. No one suggests that we provide more mental health and counselling funds instead of more cameras, more probing into our emails, and more "good guys with guns". Fear is winning over hope because fear is based on selfishness and blame and hope is based on compassion and responsibility. Sadly, the politicians who play to our basest instincts seem to have convinced the electorate that their opponents who appeal to our higher angels are "weak"…. and so we are revisiting the darkest parts of human history.”

At the root of conflicts in the name of religion is the belief among numerous (though, mercifully, not all) religionists that the particular religion they claim to follow and the community based around it are the best of all and that all the other are decidedly inferior. This warped belief can easily conduce to religious absolutism and communal supremacism. As history as well as current events show, these can lead to deep-rooted aversion to other religions and their adherents, and even to brutal wars in the name of religion and God.

Socialisation into religious absolutism and communal supremacism often happens in childhood, through parents and significant others who had been similarly socialized by their parents when they were young. Children reared in this manner often grow up imagining their religion to be the sole repository of truth, the only way to communicate with or ‘please’ God, the one and only path to heaven. Many parents actively inculcate negative views about other religions and degrading stereotypes about other religious communities in the minds of their children, with long-lasting tragic results. This message is often reinforced by people who claim to be religious authorities. Consequently, such children grow up deeply prejudiced against other faiths and communities, with ominous consequences for religiously-plural societies, as almost all societies today are.

Hatred begins in the mind, and the only way negative images can replaced with positive ones is by changing our mindsets. If we allow ourselves to recognize at least one good thing in religions and communities other than the ones we may identify with, it could go a long way in promoting more accepting and positive images of others. And that is the only way to nurture interfaith harmony.

The other day, a friend of mine and I decided to play a game that we came up with all of a sudden. It was something that we concocted at the spur of the moment: an impromptu interfaith harmony game!

In the first stretch of the game, we sat silently and brought to our mind one or more good things we could identify in every major religion. When we shared the findings of this meditation, we were delighted! We were able to discern ample goodness in all the religions we could conceive of! Each religion, we discovered, had at least something beautiful in it!

Then, in the next part of the game, we went back to silence and this time tried to bring to our mind at least one person each from different religious backgrounds whom we knew personally who had deeply touched our lives, someone who had won our hearts with his or her very being.

Now, this was something that we hadn’t really consciously given much attention to before—you know how we often tend to take people for granted and loathe to recognize goodness in anyone but ourselves—but as we let our minds wander, we discovered that it was really easy going! In no time at all we came up with an impressive list of many such people—such as the kind-hearted head of a Hindu ashram, a friendly Muslim social worker, a soft-spoken Buddhist monk, a helpful Jesuit priest, an amiable Jain doctor, an amazing Jewish peace activist, and many more such amazing souls! Not all of them were religious in the conventional sense. Some of them were, but others had transcended traditional understandings of religion. While some identified with the religious community into which they had been born, others had gone beyond such ascriptive identities, espousing a universal spirituality that saw no differences of creed or community. At the same time, each of them had been wonderfully kind to us, in different ways. They had lovingly accepted us just as we were, despite our apparent religious or other differences. It was this, we realized, that had so endeared them to us.

Our little game lasted less than half an hour, but even this brief experiment was a momentous learning experience for me. It vividly reminded me of our common humaneness, of how, despite our apparent differences, as fellow human beings there is no difference between us at all in our essence. Goodness, we also discovered, knows no religious or communal boundaries! There’s ample goodness to be discovered in every religion, community and person if we care to look for it!

You could play this game, too—with your friends, colleagues or children. I’m sure you’d be amazed at your findings!

Myth and memory lie in sweet coexistence at Ghazi Miyan’s tomb in Bahraich. Now historian Shahid Amin captures the saga of the warrior saint between covers

India is a land of contradictions and nothing typifies this so starkly as the legend of Ghazi Miyan. There is a lot of talk of magical realism in literature but the legend of Ghazi Miyan introduces it in history – past as well as present.

In Shashi Tharoor’s novel “Riot”, which liberally makes fictional use of the names of real people and places, Professor Mohammed Sarwar informs V. Lakshman that he is “working on the life of a man called Syed Salar Masud Ghazi, popularly known as Ghazi Miyan, a hugely revered Muslim warrior-saint.” He also feels that while a lot is said about the “composite culture of North India”, its “composite religiosity” is not talked about much. In this context, Prof. Sarwar mentions that a number of Muslim religious figures such as Nizamuddin Auliya, Moinuddin Chishti, Shah Madar and Shaikh Nasiruddin alias Chiragh-i-Dilli are worshipped by the Hindus and that Ghazi Miyan happens to be in this league. He also tells Lakshman that “what we need, as my friend and fellow professor Shahid Amin, whom you knew at college, likes to say, are “non sectarian histories of sectarian strife.”

Well, Professor Shahid Amin, who recently retired from Delhi University’s Department of History, has written just that kind of history. Unlike most tomes by erudite historians, it’s a multi-layered, complex, nuanced and intimate telling of the saga of the legendary Ghazi Miyan as it does not attempt to offer a single interpretation and leaves a lot to the intelligence as well as imagination of the reader.

Published by Orient BlackSwan in late September, “Conquest and Community: The Afterlife of Warrior Saint Ghazi Miyan” brings us face-to-face with a tilism, a veritable phantasmagoria where real and imaginary not only co-exist but also constantly interact with each other, resulting in folklore that perpetuates and celebrates the worship of a folk hero who is a Ghazi (an Islamic warrior or jihadi who does not hesitate to slay infidels and break idols to pieces) and, at the same time, is a protector of cows and cowherds, a brother to a Hindu queen, and a saviour of the honour of virgin daughters of the cowherds. Isn’t it incredible that this jihadi warrior is worshipped by the very Hindus that he attacked and that Hindu women pray at his tomb for a male child of his noble qualities?

Ghazi Miyan is also known as Bale Miyan, Bala Pir, Pir Bahlim and Gajan Dulha although his real name is Syed Salar Masud. In Bahraich district of Uttar Pradesh, his dargah has been an attraction for Hindu and Muslim devotees for nearly 1,000 years and a big fair is organised every year here. Ghazipur, Ghaziabad and Salarkotla that dot many regions of the country are perpetuating his memory.

Ever since his legend took shape in the 11th Century, fairs have been organised at various places and historical documents reveal that his fame had reached Bengal by the 14th Century. Shahid Amin informs us that in a letter of 1290, Amir Khusrau mentions about the “fragrant tomb of Sipahsalar Shahid” at Bahraich spreading the “perfume of odorous wood” throughout Hindustan. In 1341, the famous Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta accompanied Mohammad bin Tughlaq to the Bahraich dargah.

In the 15 Century, Sikandar Lodi had tried to ban the “festival of the spears” of Masud. Even today, these festivals are celebrated and “Neze ke Mele” (Fairs of the Spears) are organised at many places. In the 1620s, prominent Sufi Abdur Rahman Chishti wrote “Mirat-i-Masudi”, a hagiographical biography of Syed Salar Masud, and described him as Sultan-us-Shuhda (Prince of Martyrs).

But, who was Ghazi Miyan?

Syed Salar Masud was supposedly the nephew (sister’s son) of Mahmud Ghaznavi, who raided India 17 times and is believed to have sacked the famous Somnath Temple among many others. Famous for his valour and chivalry, Salar Masud died in 1034 at the age of only 19 in Bahraich. He fell from grace of his powerful uncle Mahmud because he had his eyes on the ruler’s favourite mare, referred to a Lilly ghodi in folk songs and ballads that have been sung for centuries to pay tribute to his memory. He was about to marry a Muslim girl when news reached him that the marauding Hindu chieftain Sohal Deo was about to attack cows and cowherds. Salar Masud left his wedding, went to protect them, died unwed and became a martyr. Innumerable songs, ballads and dramas were composed in his memory. They are sung every year at fairs by Dafalis. He finds a mention in Premchand’s short story in Urdu “Panchayat”, later published in Hindi as “Panch Parameshwar” but sans Syed Salar.

Now, be prepared for the ultimate shock. Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi had no nephew.

Inter Faith Week has been celebrated in the UK since 2009. But this year, the terrorist attacks that gripped Paris last Friday gave the campaign a sense of urgency.

More than 350 interfaith events have taken place in England, Northern Ireland and Wales through Saturday, November 21. The dates were planned far in advance, but the week couldn't have come at a better time for members of the East London Mosque.

Salman Farsi, a spokesman for the East End mosque, said that for years his house of worship has been a target for far right groups.

“Often global events related to terrorism causes a spike in hate mail and physical attacks on members of our community,” Farsi told The Huffington Post.

The mosque threw open its doors on Wednesday for a full-day Islam Awareness Course that had been in the works for some time. About 16 non-Muslims attended, including government workers, college diversity staff, local social workers and teachers. They were taught about Islam's intellectual history, the history of Muslims in Britain and the incredible diversity of beliefs and denominations within the religion.

According to course organizer Juber Hussain, many also had questions about Sharia law, and Islam's stance on divorce, inheritance and polygamy. Hussain said the participants came away from the program with an idea of how complex and varied Islam is throughout the world.

Across Great Britain, these moments of interfaith encounter were mirrored in churches, synagogues, mosques, universities and many other venues. There were interfaith pilgrimages, photography competitions, afternoon teas, panel discussions, and community music and arts festivals. Primary schools arranged visits to local houses of worship and universities held interfaith community service projects.

This concerted and national effort was possible because the Inter Faith Network, the organization that produces Inter Faith Week, has the support of the nation's top faith bodies. The Network acts as an umbrella group for 66 member bodies, including academic, local, national and community organizations.

"Interfaith is valuable not just for bringing faiths together, but also for community cohesion," Wineman told the Huffington Post. "It's about having the infrastructure in place where the faiths are already in dialogue with each other. Because when you've got a crisis like Paris, you don't have time at that stage to build those links."

The challenge, however, is the self-selection bias that can often come with these kinds of efforts. Wineman admitted that it's tough to reach parts of the community that aren't inclined to show up to one of the Week's events -- those who harbor racist, anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic beliefs, for example, or those who fear that interfaith dialogue would in some way weaken their own faith. These are, arguably, the people who may need to hear the message of interfaith unity the most.

His advice is to reach out to religious leaders who are favorably inclined to interfaith dialogue, in the hopes that the message will percolate back to their communities. When people see their religious leaders in dialogue with people of other faiths, it tends to improve the atmosphere, he said.

"It's not easy. If you go up to someone who is Islamophobic, you're not going to turn him around in his shoes after a conversation," Wineman said. "But you can change the environment that he's operating in."

These challenges were on the minds of the leaders of Three Faiths Forum (3FF), one of the national interfaith groups that are members of the Inter Faith Network. For Inter Faith Week, 3FF produced an Interfaith Summit in London, a first for the 18-year-old organization. It was important to the young organizers of the event, many of whom were graduates of 3FF's ParliaMentors leadership program, to include workshops that encouraged people to ask genuine questions about other traditions -- and perhaps learn more about their own faith.

"People need to get out of their comfort zones," 25-year-old Aaron D'Souza told Huff Post. "Not just religion to religion, but within religions."

D'Souza, who identifies as Roman Catholic, said that the interfaith encounters he's had through 3FF have forced him to think about Catholicism more deeply. When people asked him questions about Christianity that he didn't have answers to, he'd have to go home and read up on the subject. And because he's learned about other people's religions, he said he's also been more prone to speaking up when he hears someone else talk negatively about another faith tradition.

Anna Connell-Smith, a 26-year-old co-organizer for the event, said that it was important for her that the summit had an open, "festival" atmosphere, where young people in particular would feel welcome.

"It's important that this is coming from young people, and that others see that our generation is embracing the idea of interfaith," Connell-Smith told HuffPost.

The interfaith community at the London School of Economics chose to organize their Inter Faith Week event around helping Syrian refugees. A Giving Tree set up on the university's campus invited passers-by to join in efforts to create welcome kits to donate to newly arrived refugees. Students agreed to buy small items-- like socks, underwear, and t-shirts -- and bring the goods back to LSE's Faith Centre to be assembled into kits.

Tim Rogers, president of the school's Christian Union, took a pledge leaf this week and brought back a pack of deodorant. He told HuffPost that he was confident that most people of faith who are worried about the refugee crisis will only have compassion when they look across the English Channel to Calais, where many migrants are gathered and yearning for a chance at new life in the UK.

"Some people say religion is the problem," Rogers said. "But religion can be part of the solution, too."

ON AUGUST 17, 1998, the headlines of the daily tabloid Manabzamin declared, “Cadres have raped three students [at Jahangirnagar].” There was deathly silence on campus.

On August 18, news of campus rape was published in the daily Dinkal. The Manabzamin news clipping was hung in all four women’s hostels and at different campus locations. At night, members of the student organisations Chhatra Front and Chhatra Union put up posters demanding that the rapists be identified and punished.

On August 19, the Chhatra Front brought out a procession of 40–50 students in the morning; Ganotantrik Chhatra Oikko brought out a procession at midday demanding that the rapists be tried.

In the evening, women students of Pritilata Hall discussed the means of protesting against campus rape, a meeting was held in the lawn at 11:30 pm, it was attended by nearly all women in the hostel, they decided to bring out a procession the next day.

On August 20, Pritilata Hall students brought out a procession, which was joined in by students from the three other women’s hostels — Jahanara Imam, Nawab Faizunnessa, and Fazilatunnessa. The procession wound its way from the cafeteria to the science faculty building.

As the procession moved from the arts faculty building to the registrar’s office, several students belonging to the Bangladesh Chhatra League (student front of the Awami League which was then in power), led by secretary general of JU BCL Jasimuddin Manik (he was later exposed as the self-declared ‘centurion’ rapist), entered the male student section of the procession, and joined in the slogans being chanted by women students. When these students attempted to come to the head of the procession, women students requested all men students to come out of the procession in order to be able assert their own control.

An only-women student rally was held in front of Upacharja Bhaban, by then students had left their classrooms and joined in, there were nearly 800 women students and 150 men students. Slogans were raised, “hall theke, dol theke, michhil theke dhorshonkarider bohishkar koro” (Expel rapists from the hall, the party, and the procession). The vice-chancellor (politically appointed, like vice-chancellors of all public universities), was presented with a memorandum by the women students.

When the acting VC wanted to speak with women representatives, they refused. We are all in it together. The acting VC said, but we haven’t heard of any rape allegations. Who has been raped? How can we try anyone if rape victims don’t come forward? Give us a clue.

For a rape victim to come forward at that moment would have been suicidal as the alleged rapists were hanging around. On the spur of the moment, eight hundred women students said in one voice, “Sir, amra shobai dhorshita, we have all been raped. We want justice.” A courageous voice rang out, the rapist’s relative works in the proctor office, that’s your clue (the proctor later resigned because of student allegations that he was Jasimuddin Manik’s chief patron).

[Based on my own memories, and a published chronology of events, Dhorshon Birodhi Chhatri Andolon, 1999].

Birangona: ‘Shohosro purushke dehodaan’

Shefa’s story in Nilima Ibrahim’s Ami Birangona Bolchi starts scathingly. If you are a Bengali Muslim and male, if you are above fifty, then you are undoubtedly far less courageous than me. I pity you, I have the right to do so. You didn’t speak out!

She was a college student in ’71, she was at first tricked, and then taken by force to the nearest army cantonment by a neighbour’s son, where she was “gifted” to a Pakistani army officer. After “entertaining new guests every night” for several days, or was it weeks, she was taken from “one place to another.” Sometimes she would be kept with a group of girls, or else, all alone, in a dark room. After many weeks, or was it many months, she was put in a truck with five–six other girls. The truck’s roof was covered, but they were freezing. The truck finally stopped, they were ordered to get down. It was a bunker. At the end of a long tunnel, there was a mattress, two cots, an earthen pitcher, and a glass. “Shefa can’t remember the days that followed, maybe she doesn’t want to. Unimaginable suffering. Sometimes they had no water to drink. Food was given only occasionally. One day, they came and suddenly took away our clothes, the tattered bits we wore, stuck to our bodies like second skin, they dragged off every bit. We were left stark naked.”

Independence brought in its wake an abortion, and sexual disease, it required a long stay at the Women’s Rehabilitation Centre in Dhanmondi, Dhaka. When contacts were established with her family, her parents went and brought her home but rumour-mongering forced her to return to the centre. She took a steno-typist’s job. She met her future husband, his parents were prosperous, one evening she told him of having been a war-rape victim but he was undaunted, he proposed, they got married.

Her in-laws knew, they didn’t mind. Neither did her husband. Or so she had thought, until the day when they had an argument, and he snapped at her, oh so, you want to teach me about restraint, you who “offered [your] body to countless men” (shohosro purushke dehodaan).

Even now, says Shefa my husband and others look at me with scorn, with disdain and contempt in their eyes.

“Countless men.” Bessha.

“Amra shobai bessha”?: Resistance un-imagined

HUNDREDS of young female voices, proclaiming in front of men in positions of power and authority, “Amra shobai dhorshita” was undoubtedly revolutionary.

Can one envision many women proclaiming together, “Amra shobai bessha”? As an act of resistance. An act of solidarity [a local SlutWalk?].

Look at these two slogans, popular on campuses and streets, for many decades, both before and after independence, even now (the second one is decidedly a left slogan),

Slogan 1

Amader dhomonite shoheeder rokto

Ei rokto kono deeno

– porajoy mane na

– matha noto kore na

Ei rokto kono deeno

– porabhob mane na

– beimani kore na

The blood of martyrs flows in our veins

This blood never

– admits defeat

– bows down

This blood never

– accepts failure

– is unfaithful

Slogan 2

Jooge-jooge jitlo kara

Krishok-sromik shorbohara

Shorboharar motobad

Marxbad-Leninbad

52te jiteche kara? Krishok-sromik-shorbohara

69ey jiteche kara? Krishok-sromik-shorbohara

71ey jiteche kara? Krishok-sromik-shorbohara

Who has won over the ages?

Peasants-workers-proletariat

The ideology of the proletariat

Is Marxism-Leninism

Who won in 1952? Peasants-workers-proletariat

Who won in 1969? Peasants-workers-proletariat

Who won in 1971? Peasants-workers-proletariat

Some of us (mainly Jahangirnagar teachers and students) have tried for many years, off and on, to introduce “birangona” in these slogans,

in Slogan 1: Amader dhomonite birangonader rokto

The blood of birangonas flows in our veins

in Slogan 2: ’71ey jiteche kara? Krishok-sromik-birangona-shorbohara

Who won in 1971? Peasants-workers-birangonas-proletariat

but we never succeeded. We raised these slogans a couple of times at Shahbagh, when the Ganajagaran movement was at its strongest, but it remained confined to our small group of men and women. It never caught on.

Why? Maybe, it is because conventions are hard to break, and therefore, one keeps repeating the same old patriarchal slogans vigorously year after year, decade after decade. (Amader dhomonite Pritilotar rokto, “The blood of Pritilata flows in our veins” didn’t catch on either).

But could it be because of what Veena Das terms the “eugenic ring”? Does raising these slogans make us the sons and daughters of women who “offered their body to countless men”?

Or, worse still, does it mean that the blood which flows in our veins is of the “wrong” kind, that it is “bastard” blood, which, as the story goes, Sheikh Mujib had insisted, he wanted to banish from Bangladesh (Ami Birangona Bolchhi).

Nayanika Mookherjee, 2002 PhD thesis published recently as, The Spectral Wound: Sexual Violence, Public Memories, and the Bangladesh War of 1971, with a foreword by Veena Das, Durham: Duke University Press, 2015.